( – promoted by Jack McCullough)
UPDATE: Montpelier city council denies Taser request until completion of a public process, with opportunity for a full and complete community discussion.
The January 20th edition of the Montpelier Bridge is no[w]t yet available online, at the time of this posting anyway, however anyone in the area who is able to pick up and read a print version available on the street is urged to do so asap.
The newspaper includes a lengthy article on pages 22 and 23 reporting on the Taser hearing before the city council last week. In addition is an editorial on page 26 written by Nat Frothingham within which is voiced strongly worded opposition to the purchase of Tasers by the city.
In addition, for further information concerning Montpelier, Vermont and Tasers, check out an informational slideshow presentation of mine on the subject, here.
and will decide parameters of forming community committee to discuss Taser issue and potential policies.
Here in Essex Town, we never put the issue of tasers in our operating budget, which is voted on at Town Meeting. (Can you imagine, Essex, with a population of roughly 20,000, still has a Town Meeting, one where only about 4% of the people can vote!) Instead, the police came before our Selectboard to ask our permission to use money that was available in the so-called “Equitable Sharing Program” or Asset Seizure Program, which was evidently established by the U.S. Department of Justice. For instance, certain assets seized from drug dealers are sold, and the funds go into equitable sharing. If your PD participates, it can apply for funding through equitable sharing.
So, the SB okayed the proposal 4-1, and presto, we have tasers in Essex without any vote going before the residents. It seems that your City Council in Montpelier is much more attuned to involving the public than we are here in Essex.